This is second appeal against the judgment dated 6th March, 1975 and dated 23rd April, 1976 passed by the learned Rent Controller and Civil Judge at Karachi and the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Karachi respectively, in Rent Case No. 211;65 and Rent Appeal No 243/75.
The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed the aforesaid ejectment application on the ground- of default etc. The above application was resisted: It was inter alia pleaded by the appellant that there was no. Relationship of landlady and tenant between the respondent and the appellant respectively. Con--sequently, the learned Rent Controller framed a 'preliminary issue and recorded a finding on the above issue against the.
Present appellant. I seems that the appellant -being aggrieved by the above judgment filed Rent Appeal No.466/67, which was allowed by the judgment dated 6th January, 1968. The respondent being aggrieved by the above judgment filed second appeal, namely, Second Appeal No. 87/68, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 8th March, 1973 on the ground that in view of the case of M/s. Kandawala v. Rashiduddin (1969SCMR 710), the civil appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was not competent. As a result of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the case was sent back to the Rent Controller with the direction to proceed with the case from the stage when the aforesaid judgment recording the finding on the question of relationship was passed by him. It further seems that after the above judgment, the learned Rent Controller by his judgment dated 6th March, 1975 allowed the respondent's above application and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession within 2 months from the passing of the above judgment. The appellant being aggrieved by the above judgment filed Rent Appeal No. 242/75, which was dismissed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge through his judgment dated 23rd April, 1976. The appellant being aggrieved by the above two judgments has filed the present second appeal.
2. (a) In support of the above appeal Mr. Sher Ali, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there was not sufficient material before the two Courts below to conclude that the relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the respondent and the appellant respectively and, therefore, both the Courts erred in recording the finding on the above question in favour of the respondent.
On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. K. B. Bhutto that there was sufficient material on record to conclude that the relationship existed between the parties of landlady and tenant.
(8) It may be observed that the construction in question is situated in Bhutto village where the land belongs to the Government and the constructions have been raised by the various persons without approved plans. Iv the present case, the respondent in support of her case had inter alia produced Exh. 8/1 to 8/4 with regard to the payment of taxes/ rent to the City Deputy Collector, Karachi, Exhs.
10 and 11 receipts pertaining to the payment of taxes to the Karachi Municipal Corporation, Demand notice Exh. 12, Extract from the record of right Exh. 14, Exh. 15 Distress Warrant application, Exhs. 6 and 7 the extracts from the ledger maintained by the Judge Small Causes Court, also Exh. 13, P. T. 1 Form dated 5th March, 1964. It may be observed that the above documents indicate that the respondent has been making payments of taxes. However, the question which requires consideration is, as to whether there is something on record to conclude that relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the respondent and the appellant respectively. On the above point Exhs. 6 and 7 are the extracts from the ledger maintained by the Small Causes Court. Exh. 6 indicates that Rs. 79 were deposited by one Abdul Razzak in Distress Warrant application No. 763, 68 on 3rd September, 1958.
Exh. 7 indicates that another sum of Rs. 79 was deposited on 12th November, 1958. Whereas Exh. 13 P.
T.-I form referred to hereinabove, indicates that the respondent is the owner of property No. B. II/A- 43 in which 41 persons are shown as the tenants of the respondent including one Razzak at serial No. 39. Whereas Exh. 14 is an extract from the property registered of the City Survey Office, Karachi, which shows that the respondent was shown as the owner of the land measuring .2 567 sq. Yds. By inheritance from Zainab Bibi deceased. In addition to the above documents the learned Rent Controller had also inspected the site. On the basis of his observation, the Rent Controller recorded his view that the tenement in question is part of the compound which admittedly belonged to the respondent.
(a) It was also urged by Mr. Sher Ali that there is nothing on record to indicate that the present appellant namely, Ghulam Raza is the same person as Abdul Razzak. It may be observed that the description of Abdul Razzak given in various documents brought on record is Abdul Razzak son of Dilawar; whereas the appellant claims himself to be Ghulam Raza son of Dilawar. The parentage is the same but there is discrepancy in the same. It may be pertinent to observe that in the writte statement to the rent application, though the same was signed by the appellant as Ghulam Raza, but it was not expressly pleaded that Abdul Razzak son of Dilawar was some 4ifferent person than the appellant I enquired from the learned counsel for the appellant, as to whether there is any other son of Dilawar living in the same compound, to which his reply was that Dilawar had only one son namely, Ghulam Raza and there was no other son. In my view on the basis of the evidence on record coupled with the observation made at the site inspection by the learned Rent Controller the two Courts below could have recorded the finding in favour of the respondent and, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court in a second appeal as the above finding cannot be said to b perverse or contrary to the record.
3. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the above appeal and it is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.